While underscoring most emphatically that security overrides religion and court will only favour security, the Bombay High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Taxi-Rickshaw OLA-UBER Mens Union v. Adani Airport Holdings Ltd. & Others in Writ Petition (L) No. 2960 of 2026 with Interim Application No. 7826 of 2026 in Writ Petition (L) No. 2960 of 2026 that was pronounced just recently on March 5, 2026 has refused any relief to taxi and auto-rickshaw drivers who were seeking to offer namaz at the site of a now demolished temporary shed near the city airport during Ramzan.
It must be laid bare that the Bombay High Court was hearing a petition that had been filed by the Taxi-Rickshaw Ola-Uber Men’s Union claiming that a temporary shed in the vicinity of the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, where they used to offer prayers, was demolished by authorities. It must be also noted that a Division Bench of Bombay High Court comprising of Hon’ble Justice BP Colabawalla and Hon’ble Mr Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla after perusing the facts of the case and the material on record conceded that while Ramzan was an integral part of Islam, its adherents cannot claim to have a religious right to offer namaz (prayers) at any place during the holy month, especially in the vicinity of an airport where security concerns are high.
My very best friend Sageer Khan in Mackronia locality in Sagar in Madhya Pradesh 33 years ago from April 1993 to April 1995 always ingrained in me underscoring most vocally that:
National interests always stands paramount and above everything else and whether it is religious interests or any other interests they all definitely have to give way always to national interests and not vice-versa.
Muslims enjoy maximum freedom in India all over the world who are still enjoying polygamy even though abolished for Hindus and related religions like Sikh, Jain, Buddhists in 1955 who accepted so quietly enjoyed by them since time immemorial which is undoubtedly most discriminatory and must be immediately abolished for Muslims also as abolished in Turkey and so many other Muslim countries also as it is the root cause of over population, poverty, conversion among other ills as we all must be treated on an equal footing because we are a democratic country and not a theocratic country like Pakistan. No one can be ever above the nation which includes Muslims also.” Absolutely right! There can be just no denying or disputing it!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by a Division Bench of Bombay High Court comprising of Hon’ble Justice BP Colabawalla and Hon’ble Mr Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
The above Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to the Respondents to allot the same space on which a shed was constructed near and/or around Terminal 1 of the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, and was being used for prayers during Ramzan. In the alternative, it is prayed to allot some other space of at least 1500 sq. ft. for doing vazu and offering namaz.”
As we see, the Division Bench then lays bare in para 2 disclosing briefly that, “The said structure/temporary shed was demolished by the MMRDA, in April, 2025 as there was a complaint that the said structure/shed was illegal and unauthorized. The present Petition has been filed only in February, 2026.”
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 3 that, “Despite this, purely on humanitarian grounds, we had requested the Respondents to consider whether some space could be allotted to the Petitioners so that their members were not inconvenienced during the month of Ramzan.”
Be it noted, the Division Bench most significantly notes in para 4 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “The aforesaid exercise has been carried out and a survey report has been placed before us in a sealed cover dated 28th February, 2026. This survey report has been signed by the Senior Inspector of Police Airport Police Station, Police Inspector (Law and Order) Airport Police Station, Anti Terrorism Cell Airport Police Station, the Chief Security Officer of MIAL, as well as the Deputy Manager/Land Sites Security, MIAL. This survey report inspected seven different sites to try and see if the Petitioners could be temporarily accommodated so that they could do their namaz during the month of Ramzan.
After inspecting these seven sites, the report says that all the survey locations were found unsuitable for construction of a temporary shed due to congestion, safety, and Airport Development Plan constraints. It is further opined that allowing drivers or other individuals of the Petitioners’ Association to offer namaz at the prayer shed within the Terminal 1 premises of the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, may cause a potential security risk.”
As it turned out, the Division Bench then enunciates in para 5 noting that, “Once we are faced with this report, which has been submitted by experts, we are unable to direct the Respondents to allot any space to the Petitioners’ Association, even for a temporary period, to undertake namaz during the month of Ramzan.”
It is worth noting that the Division Bench then notes in para 6 that:
We also find, and it has been placed on record, that from the parking area, where the drivers of the Petitioners’ Association park their cars/rickshaws, a Mosque is within a distance of approximately 1 k.m. The Petitioners contend that the said structure is not a Mosque but is a Madrasa. Even assuming, for the sake of arguments, that the same is a Madrasa, it was conceded before us that prayers are offered in that structure. Hence, looking at the totality of the facts of the case, we find that we would not be able to grant any relief to the Petitioners.”
As a corollary, the Division Bench then deems it fit to direct and hold in para 7 that:
The Petition is accordingly dismissed.”
It would be instructive to note that the Division Bench then hastens to add in para 8 noting that:
At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that they would like to make a representation to the MIAL, through the Airport Authority of India, for allotment of a suitable space for namaz in the new re-developed airport, which is proposed to come up in future. The Petitioners are free to make any such representation, if they so choose. However, it is clarified that it is entirely left to the discretion of the Airport Authority of India and MIAL to allot such a place, or otherwise, after taking all factors into consideration, including, but not limited to the safety, security and convenience of passengers that would be utilizing the Airport.”
Resultantly, the Division Bench then further directs and holds in para 9 that, “In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, nothing survives in the Intervention Application filed therein and the same is also disposed of accordingly.”
Finally, we see that the Division Bench then concludes aptly by directing and holding in para 10 that:
This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.”
In conclusion, we thus see that Bombay High Court dismisses plea seeking allotment of space in airport to offer namaz explicitly on grounds of security which stands paramount and above everything else. We also definitely need to pay our singular attention that Hon’ble Mr Justice BP Colabawalla orally remarked that:
When it comes to security, we will not compromise one bit. We were exploring from a humanitarian point of view. They (authorities) have examined seven different sites… We have to look at the larger picture… We have to look at the security for every passenger, irrespective of their religion. The threat doesn’t necessarily come from you (petitioners). The area has to be secured…” Absolutely right!
It is thus ostensibly a no-brainer that the Bombay High Court has most commendably given paramount importance to the security factor thus overriding all the other considerations that came in the way and this is what palpably played the most crucial “trump card” in ensuring that the plea of the petitioners that was filed and argued through advocate Shehzad Naqvi most brilliantly was finally dismissed. We thus see here that the Bombay High Court has refused point blank to grant relief to a taxi drivers association that had sought space near Mumbai’s domestic airport to offer namaz during the holy month of Ramzan.
It was held most crystal clear by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court that security considerations at an airport shall take precedence over such requests. Of course, there can be just no gainsaying that the petitioners must now indubitably comply without fail with what has been held so explicitly, elegantly and eloquently by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in this leading case after taking into account all the facts of the case and other material considerations. There can be definitely just no denying or disputing it!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh
